I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Maybe I missed the TESTIMONY where she stated what she did specifically, as well as where and when.

Of course it wasn’t in the testimony. What she did, specifically, and where and when are classified. And, since the White House didn’t choose to blab about that, it will remain classified.

As for the United States taking affirmative steps to protect her identity, that’s right from the IIPA law. The CIA did NOT do everything they could — Novak himself explained if Tenent had called him and asked him not to publish her name, he would have complied.

Information was leaked to Novak that he was not authorized to have. He asked the CIA to tell him if that information was classified. They weren’t authorized to tell him. They simply said “Don’t print it.” If Novak weren’t such an idiot, that would be enough. And, if it hadn’t been for the fact that the people who leaked that to him were top White House officials, the CIA might have taken some action against the leakers right there and then.

I don’t know why this security stuff is so hard for righties to understand.

As for “serving” overseas — I think it is a valid question — for instance, if she went on vacation to Hawaii, is that “serving” overseas?

No, it’s not a valid question if you’re going to say something ridiculous like that. Once again:

“…I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.”

How can you confuse that with a vacation to Hawaii? For as much as the original question was valid, it’s been answered and there’s no reason to keep asking it.

LOLZ!

No. Gordon the Muddleheaded was stoopider … but no more dishonest. Jake at least makes a little bit of sense occasionally, albeit his “facts” (cribbed from the RNC “talking points”) are all wrong.

Cheers,

The CIA did what they could to stop him w/o revealing classified information.

Just point me to where it says they can declassify info w/o going through the CIA because I don’t see it.

She couldn’t testify about the specifics and the house members could not ask her about the specifics because the CIA deemed it classified information. I don’t why the CIA would deem a vacation in Hawaii as classified info. How did you get that information?

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292
- – - – - – -

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows . . .

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

. . .

Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:

(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;

(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.

(b) Information originated by:

(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;

(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivists decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

. . .

Sec. 4.4. (b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:

(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;

(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and

(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees and Vice Presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential appointee or a Vice Presidential appointee.

6.1. (l) “Declassification authority” means:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;

(2) the originators current successor in function;

(3) a supervisory official of either; or

(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Going to Hawaii is not serving overseas because Hawaii is a part of the United States.

Maybe I missed the TESTIMONY where she stated what she did specifically, as well as where and when. As for the United States taking affirmative steps to protect her identity, that’s right from the IIPA law. The CIA did NOT do everything they could — Novak himself explained if Tenent had called him and asked him not to publish her name, he would have complied. I am not discussing “intetionally” or “unintentionally” but since you brought it up, doesn’t there have to be a “pattern of releasing” said information? Was the law even written to apply to CURRENT Executive branch officials?

Finally, last time I checked the Executive Order, either the President or Vice President of the United States can declassify material without the approval of some lackey at CIA.

-Yes.

2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps” to protect her identity?

-No, those bastards outed her.

3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

-I don’t think he can declassify information like that on a whim. Wouldn’t he have to consult with the CIA to make sure he was not endangering national security?

1) Was she “serving” overseas?

Apparently, it’s the “serving” part you’re getting stuck on. Did she “serve” anywhere? Was her employment at the CIA alone not considered “serving”? I don’t think this really requires a lot of semantic analysis. If Ms. Toensing had a very narrow interpretation of “serving”, she should have included it in the code. But, if you need a reason for keeping ones identity covert, it would simply make sense to do so when that person is conducting “secret missions to find vital intelligence” overseas. If Plame traveled to the Middle East, as long as her name and appearance were known, but the fact that she worked for the CIA was not, that would meet the needs of a covert status. Under those circumstances, she could do her job without a great deal of risk to herself or others involved in that operation.

2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps” to protect her identity?

Do you mean, did the CIA make an effort to keep the White House from blowing her cover? There are a lot of people in the administration who have clearances and were allowed to know things that they had no good reason to know. This White House has a very casual attitude about standard security practices. For starters, if you know someone is employed by the CIA, but you don’t know for sure if they’re status is covert, you assume that it is until you find out for certain that it isn’t. That would be common sense for someone who was given a secret or top secret clearance and who was paying attention while they were being briefed on what it means to have one. Rep. Davis appeared to be laying the blame at the CIA for not letting everyone know that her status was covert, and he seemed to imply that it was the CIA’s fault that the administration was allowed to be so cavalier about telling the media that Plame worked at the CIA. Maybe it WAS the CIA’s fault for not realizing what a bunch of irresponsible hacks were employed by the administration. The fact that Karl Rove still has a clearance shows that they’re still not taking security seriously.

3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?

Has he said that he did? If so, was he authorized to do so?

1. Valerie Plame testifies under oath that she was covert and she had served oversees during the previous 5 years before her cover was ruined.

2. The head of the CIA confirms all of this while under oath.

3. Fox Viewer: “Guys, Plame was not serving overseas!!! she was behind a desk in Langely, VA well for over 5 years when her name was printed in a newspaper!”

4. Fox Viewer: “Was she “serving” overseas?”